There's only really two directors that I would say I'm a big fan of, Michel Gondry and Wes Anderson, in case you were wondering... but I do admire the films of Quentin Tarantino. They're always so stylish, so cool. I met him briefly once at a signing in HMV Dublin and he was just as cool as I expected, security were keeping us all moving but I'm sure if he could he would have had a chat with all of us.
But like I said, I wouldn't describe myself as a big fan. I haven't exactly enjoyed all of this films. They're all classy and they're all... cool but I didn't really like Reservoir Dogs or Kill Bill: Vol. 2 that much and to be honest... and I know this is some kind of blasphemy to some, but I wasn't that pushed on Pulp Fiction either. Parts of it were good... I should point out that I only saw it a few years ago, so long after I'd heard a lot of hype about it, and I thought the same thing as I did after I saw Taxi Driver; is that what all the fuss was about?
Anyway, this isn't a review of QT, it's a review of Inglourious Basterds, so I should really get on with it.
I knew going into Inglourious Basterds that it's a long enough film, this theatrical release is 153 minutes long. I know it's a thing that might put people off and I think that's important to know from the outset. Personally I don't mind relatively long run times, as long as I know in advance. In fact I check how long all films are before I watch them. It saves me the annoyance of thinking a film is over when it isn't; in the past this had spoiled my enjoyment of a film... not any more. I recommend this tactic. So now you know how long it is, don't complain if your bum gets sore or you have to go to the toilet. Drink less and go to a comfortable cinema. Actually, these days 153 mins isn't even that long... so perhaps I didn't even need to mention. But now you know.
None of this tells you about the film though and to be honest I think you're better off not know much about it. It's a lot more interesting plotwise than I thought it would be. I guess I'd forgotten that behind all the talking and all the style, QT always holds his films up with a strong plot. (I haven't seen Death Proof though, despite having a signed book of the script, so don't go moaning at me if it doesn't have a plot). QT keeps the action in bitesized chunks and it makes the length easier to... digest as it were.
So finally, what did I think of this one? I thought it was a good romp, great fun and it futher reinforced my belief that Brad Pitt absolutely deserves an Oscar. I've thought that since 1996 though... but he is just so funny in this, if I hadn't seen 12 Monkeys or Fight Club I would have said he should just do comedies. Not that Inglourious Basterds is a comedy. Nor is it a war movie. It's kind of a thriller, action, drama with some funny parts. QT has done a great job of melding together the different genres and balancing them so it holds your interest. It's worth mentioning Christoph Waltz too, well cast.
It's not really like any other movie I've seen recently so I don't know how to recommend it really. Obviously if you're a Tarantino fan you should see but if you're not... then I guess it really depends on the kind of films you like. I wouldn't say that it's a big crowd pleaser. I thought it was brilliant but I just don't know how other people will experience it. Course it could be one of those films that captures the imagination and everybody loves. Certainly I didn't hear anyone complaining as I was leaving the cinema and I always listen around on the way out. On balance I think I should recommend it to everyone... but just don't go in with any particular expectations.
The thing about QT is that I don't really think his films have a definite signature. I mean ok, some people say his storytelling is his signature, or his reference to pop culture, or his use of music... but the fact is, you can't have three signatures, certainly not if you don't use all of them in all your films... He's not like Wes Anderson or Michel Gondry, who both have a definite visual style. It's not a bad thing that he doesn't but it just makes it hard for me to be sure about him. That's why, even though I really loved Jackie Brown, Kill Bill: Vol. 1 and a number of other films he was involved in - (though not Hostel, let me make that clear... not Hostel) - I'm just not sure if I love QT. This film's taken him one step closer though. I'm not entirely convinced that it's a masterpiece but it's definitely one of the best films I've seen this year, it's a film that I'd be happy to watch again.
Oh, also, it's not particularly gruesome or violent but if you are squeamish you might need to look away once or twice. It really mainly plot and dialogue driven.
8.5/10
An afterthought: I had a look at a couple of negative reviews and I must say, I just don't see why some people are criticising it because it doesn't accurately portray WWII or the different sides of the war. I really don't get it. It's a film, a work of fiction. Ok, it takes one idea from reality, but that doesn't mean it then has some obligation to be a documentary. It's not even particularly about the war, it's just set during the war. You could have made this films about an epic struggle between cats and dogs if you wanted to. Actually....
Showing posts with label action. Show all posts
Showing posts with label action. Show all posts
Wednesday, 19 August 2009
Thursday, 18 June 2009
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009)
Just to be clear about things. I loved Transformers. I know there are people who didn't like the first one, to those people I say... don't bother watching this one. If, like me, you thought that the first film was the most fun you've had in the cinema in years, then read on.
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is set about two years after the first Michael Bay Transformers film and, as you can gather from the trailers, our friend Sam Witwicky is off to college. I'm not going tell you any more about the plot, personally I wouldn't even watch the new trailer because I thought it looked like they might reveal too much. This made it difficult to go to other movies, luckily that trailer has hardly any talking so staring at the floor worked quite well. But I digress. I seem to do that a lot.
Ok, when I walked out of the theatre after seeing this I was hyped up, I thought it was great. And it is great. If you love giant robot fighting - and I love giant robot fighting - then this is the film for you. But today I'm wondering, how great was it... really.
Well the effect are fantastic. Really amazing. I mean I've never seen anything like it. I thought the robot fighting moved slightly too quickly in the first film and I wasn't the only one. That has been slowed down a little bit in this one. The action still moves at a frenetic pace but you can actually see if it's an arm or a leg or whatever that the robots are bashing. So that's great.
Plotwise, I've seen a lot of moaning on the internet over the last day or two. I don't really know what they're complaining about. I didn't think it was particularly complicated, but in any case it doesn't really matter anyway. In fact I still don't know how they managed to have so much of a plot at all. There didn't seem to be time between the giant robots fighting. So that's grand really.
Where the film falls over slightly is on the characterisation. In the first film we had quite a few characters roaming around and they were all given a direction and a reason to be there. In this one it's as though Michael Bay decided that we already know the various characters that are back so he didn't need to deal with them. And it introduces very few new characters so there isn't really any attempt to build scenes around any connection between any of the characters at all. So that was a bit annoying. It didn't annoy me at the time, but it annoys me now.
It's not a perfect film and it was never going to have the same effect on me as the first one. There were no expectations going into that one, we didn't have any idea of how the movie should be. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen was always going to suffer from how people thought it should go, based on Transformers, and it's not exactly fair to judge it through the same eyes.
I gave the film a 9.5 on Twitter straight after but I'm going to drop that a bit to an 8.5/10. I'll round that up to a 9 on IMDb though. I had a great time watching it; the action scenes are absolutely fantastic. Could it have been better? Yes. On the other hand it could have been a lot worse and, while I have focused on merits of the action, there were some genuinely good "normal" scenes as well. In fact it's a lot funnier than the first one and I welcomed that.
I have to throw it in really as I'm sure there are people who want to know... How does it compare to J.J. Abrams Star Trek. Well... I did love Star Trek and if I recall correctly I said almost exactly the same thing about the criticisms of its plot. It's kind of hard for me to compare them. Star Trek was probably the better film, in the sense that there was better balance to it, it had all the elements you want, in satisfying quantity and quality... but I can't say I'm overly interested in seeing it in the cinema again. I might watch it on DVD with a friend (I have quite a large HD TV with blu-ray player so it's not that I'm really damning it to TV) but I don't feel a need to pay €10 to see it. I absolutely want to see Transformers: ROTF in the cinema again. On the other hand I've given it a lower rating. At the end of the day, as excellent as it was, Star Trek just wasn't as fun a film. That's how they compare for me anyway.
Course if I was comparing Chris Pine to Shia LeBeouf we would have an outright winner...
um....
...took a while to find that photo...
...what was I talking about again?
Anyway, as always, let me know your own comments!
8.5/10
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is set about two years after the first Michael Bay Transformers film and, as you can gather from the trailers, our friend Sam Witwicky is off to college. I'm not going tell you any more about the plot, personally I wouldn't even watch the new trailer because I thought it looked like they might reveal too much. This made it difficult to go to other movies, luckily that trailer has hardly any talking so staring at the floor worked quite well. But I digress. I seem to do that a lot.
Ok, when I walked out of the theatre after seeing this I was hyped up, I thought it was great. And it is great. If you love giant robot fighting - and I love giant robot fighting - then this is the film for you. But today I'm wondering, how great was it... really.
Well the effect are fantastic. Really amazing. I mean I've never seen anything like it. I thought the robot fighting moved slightly too quickly in the first film and I wasn't the only one. That has been slowed down a little bit in this one. The action still moves at a frenetic pace but you can actually see if it's an arm or a leg or whatever that the robots are bashing. So that's great.
Plotwise, I've seen a lot of moaning on the internet over the last day or two. I don't really know what they're complaining about. I didn't think it was particularly complicated, but in any case it doesn't really matter anyway. In fact I still don't know how they managed to have so much of a plot at all. There didn't seem to be time between the giant robots fighting. So that's grand really.
Where the film falls over slightly is on the characterisation. In the first film we had quite a few characters roaming around and they were all given a direction and a reason to be there. In this one it's as though Michael Bay decided that we already know the various characters that are back so he didn't need to deal with them. And it introduces very few new characters so there isn't really any attempt to build scenes around any connection between any of the characters at all. So that was a bit annoying. It didn't annoy me at the time, but it annoys me now.
It's not a perfect film and it was never going to have the same effect on me as the first one. There were no expectations going into that one, we didn't have any idea of how the movie should be. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen was always going to suffer from how people thought it should go, based on Transformers, and it's not exactly fair to judge it through the same eyes.
I gave the film a 9.5 on Twitter straight after but I'm going to drop that a bit to an 8.5/10. I'll round that up to a 9 on IMDb though. I had a great time watching it; the action scenes are absolutely fantastic. Could it have been better? Yes. On the other hand it could have been a lot worse and, while I have focused on merits of the action, there were some genuinely good "normal" scenes as well. In fact it's a lot funnier than the first one and I welcomed that.
I have to throw it in really as I'm sure there are people who want to know... How does it compare to J.J. Abrams Star Trek. Well... I did love Star Trek and if I recall correctly I said almost exactly the same thing about the criticisms of its plot. It's kind of hard for me to compare them. Star Trek was probably the better film, in the sense that there was better balance to it, it had all the elements you want, in satisfying quantity and quality... but I can't say I'm overly interested in seeing it in the cinema again. I might watch it on DVD with a friend (I have quite a large HD TV with blu-ray player so it's not that I'm really damning it to TV) but I don't feel a need to pay €10 to see it. I absolutely want to see Transformers: ROTF in the cinema again. On the other hand I've given it a lower rating. At the end of the day, as excellent as it was, Star Trek just wasn't as fun a film. That's how they compare for me anyway.
Course if I was comparing Chris Pine to Shia LeBeouf we would have an outright winner...
um....
...took a while to find that photo...
...what was I talking about again?
Anyway, as always, let me know your own comments!
8.5/10
Wednesday, 13 May 2009
Star Trek (2009)
I saw this about a week an half before it came out... What would have been useful for people would have been if I reviewed it then. Unfortunately I'm pretty lazy... but at least you're getting it eventually, right?? On with the show.
This Star Trek is actually the 11th film in the franchise, this is of course in addition to the 5 TV series and various video games associated with it. In case you never realised, Star Trek is kind of a big deal.
Marketing types would have you believe that J.J. Abrams is kind of a big deal too. Personally I could take or leave... well, mostly leave, all of his TV ventures and I had pretty much written him off. Then I saw Cloverfield. To my surprise, I really liked Cloverfield. Even now I still think about it - no mean feat for a popcorn movie. Mind you, sometimes what I think about it is how it made me feel so terribly ill... but sure, at least I'm thinking about it. So when I heard that J.J. was doing the new Star Trek film I was... curious. I'd have watched a lot of Star Trek on TV over the years but the only ST film I really liked was Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. They just never looked that interesting... but a J.J. Abrams one? Well ok.
So it was with these things in mind that I went along to the blue carpet premiere in Dublin. I mention this because one of the things I've noticed is that a movie always seems better when it's free. Also, when you see it with 700 or so other people who are also seeing it for free, that makes it better too. So anyway, sat down in the theatre, Rick O'Shea said hi and had a chat with a dressed up Trekker, they gave out some prizes. Stage set. But was this going to turn out like Indiana Jones? I mean I liked Indiana Jones but I know a lot of people were annoyed about it.
Opening scene. Awesome. And I don't use that word often. Though I will say, I did think the Romulan ship looked a bit like the Shadow ships in Babylon 5. Not that it matters, I'm just saying in case anyone else thought the same - did you? Anyway, a great start to a great film. Star Trek (11) is a success in many different ways; it has an interesting plot, it makes good use of the main characters, it's appropriately funny, there are some great action scenes, my favourite Star Trek character is well represented (and that is important - to me as it will be to many people, albeit they may have different favourites - like I said, Star Trek is kind of a big deal.), the effects are great... what more do you want?
I've heard some people saying the plot is a bit confusing, I didn't think it was but to be honest, it hardly matters at all. This film is just a great ride. Now's probably a good time to mention Chris Pine. That man is going to be all over the place soon. Right now, I would watch him in anything and I'd say I'm not the only one. Leaving Mr. Pine aside, everyone else is strong as well. I had been worried about how Simon Pegg was going to fit into a Hollywood blockbuster. It turns out he fitted in just fine. I could go on but tbh just take it that I recommend this film to anyone who's interested in eating a load of popcorn and seeing an excellent summer(ish) blockbuster film. It's great.
If you don't want to eat a load of popcorn, or even see an excellent summer(ish) blockbuster film, then don't go to Star Trek. I'm a great believer in people watching films that work for them. Just because I say it's a great film doesn't mean everyone should watch. Just like not everyone should watch the fantastic film, Crank. Watch films that you feel you will appreciate. If you absolutely hate sci-fi or you want a film that you can think about, don't go see Star Trek and moan about how everyone was saying it was great but you didn't like it. It wasn't made for you. If you don't mind sci-fi and you just want to be entertain then definitely, go and see it. Go and see it now.
I'm starting to realise that this is a very long review but I still feel the need to ramble a little while longer... I just wanted to make something utterly clear. While I think this was a highly entertaining film, it'll never be a cult classic for me. It's great fun, it'll make stars out of some of the cast and undoubtedly it will rejuvenate the Star Trek franchise... but at the heart of it, it's candy. There's no meat to it, there's no real emotion, there's nothing beyond the sparkle it'll put in your eye for those couple of hours. I had a great time at the premiere but after, I went home to the real world. The old Star Trek had its roots there.
9/10
This Star Trek is actually the 11th film in the franchise, this is of course in addition to the 5 TV series and various video games associated with it. In case you never realised, Star Trek is kind of a big deal.
Marketing types would have you believe that J.J. Abrams is kind of a big deal too. Personally I could take or leave... well, mostly leave, all of his TV ventures and I had pretty much written him off. Then I saw Cloverfield. To my surprise, I really liked Cloverfield. Even now I still think about it - no mean feat for a popcorn movie. Mind you, sometimes what I think about it is how it made me feel so terribly ill... but sure, at least I'm thinking about it. So when I heard that J.J. was doing the new Star Trek film I was... curious. I'd have watched a lot of Star Trek on TV over the years but the only ST film I really liked was Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. They just never looked that interesting... but a J.J. Abrams one? Well ok.
So it was with these things in mind that I went along to the blue carpet premiere in Dublin. I mention this because one of the things I've noticed is that a movie always seems better when it's free. Also, when you see it with 700 or so other people who are also seeing it for free, that makes it better too. So anyway, sat down in the theatre, Rick O'Shea said hi and had a chat with a dressed up Trekker, they gave out some prizes. Stage set. But was this going to turn out like Indiana Jones? I mean I liked Indiana Jones but I know a lot of people were annoyed about it.
Opening scene. Awesome. And I don't use that word often. Though I will say, I did think the Romulan ship looked a bit like the Shadow ships in Babylon 5. Not that it matters, I'm just saying in case anyone else thought the same - did you? Anyway, a great start to a great film. Star Trek (11) is a success in many different ways; it has an interesting plot, it makes good use of the main characters, it's appropriately funny, there are some great action scenes, my favourite Star Trek character is well represented (and that is important - to me as it will be to many people, albeit they may have different favourites - like I said, Star Trek is kind of a big deal.), the effects are great... what more do you want?
I've heard some people saying the plot is a bit confusing, I didn't think it was but to be honest, it hardly matters at all. This film is just a great ride. Now's probably a good time to mention Chris Pine. That man is going to be all over the place soon. Right now, I would watch him in anything and I'd say I'm not the only one. Leaving Mr. Pine aside, everyone else is strong as well. I had been worried about how Simon Pegg was going to fit into a Hollywood blockbuster. It turns out he fitted in just fine. I could go on but tbh just take it that I recommend this film to anyone who's interested in eating a load of popcorn and seeing an excellent summer(ish) blockbuster film. It's great.
If you don't want to eat a load of popcorn, or even see an excellent summer(ish) blockbuster film, then don't go to Star Trek. I'm a great believer in people watching films that work for them. Just because I say it's a great film doesn't mean everyone should watch. Just like not everyone should watch the fantastic film, Crank. Watch films that you feel you will appreciate. If you absolutely hate sci-fi or you want a film that you can think about, don't go see Star Trek and moan about how everyone was saying it was great but you didn't like it. It wasn't made for you. If you don't mind sci-fi and you just want to be entertain then definitely, go and see it. Go and see it now.
I'm starting to realise that this is a very long review but I still feel the need to ramble a little while longer... I just wanted to make something utterly clear. While I think this was a highly entertaining film, it'll never be a cult classic for me. It's great fun, it'll make stars out of some of the cast and undoubtedly it will rejuvenate the Star Trek franchise... but at the heart of it, it's candy. There's no meat to it, there's no real emotion, there's nothing beyond the sparkle it'll put in your eye for those couple of hours. I had a great time at the premiere but after, I went home to the real world. The old Star Trek had its roots there.
9/10
Saturday, 9 May 2009
Crank: High Voltage (2009)
--** This blog has moved to www.averagefilmreviews.com, so if you like what you read then please come over and have a look! You can read all the old reviews over there including this one for Crank: High Voltage. You can of course continue reading this article here though. **--
After watching Crank the other week, I was really looking forward to Crank: High Voltage. Crank was one of the maddest films I'd ever seen... it wasn't THE maddest film; I'd have to review the IMDb list to be sure but The Spirit, which I saw earlier this year, is definitely a contender; but it was pretty mad nonethless...
The review for Crank was pretty short so I'm gonna keep this one short too. Again, it's not really worth worrying about spoilers when it comes to Crank films, so I'll tell you a little about it. If you recall, that mad day he had did not end well for our friend Chev Chelios. Luckily for us, he got better and now, a few months later, he's well up for sorting out the problems that have befallen him. There's no point in saying much more about the plot except that it is reasonably well thought out, as was the plot of the first film, but it's completely irrelevant. Basically someone has stolen Chev's heart and replaced it with a battery powered one. So obviously Chev's pissed about that and is on the rampage trying to get it back.
I would say that you should watch Crank before watching Crank: High Voltage. Most of the characters from Crank make a reappearance and there are a few flashbacks so it might be a bit confusing if you haven't seen it. That said, maybe you'd just appreciate it on a different level if you haven't. I don't know. I'm in two minds about it actually, because I didn't like Crank: High Voltage as much as Crank and I don't know if that's because I already knew pretty much what it was about.
Crank was so crazy and so different, Crank: High Voltage is crazy and different too but in the same way. They do ramp it up a bit, a lot actually, and I did appreciate that and I did really enjoy it, but at the end of the day it's the same thing. Also I think keeping the characters didn't really help it. They did bring in a couple of new ones but they seemed to try to mix all the old ones in as well. There were just too many in end. I think they could've taken out some of the scenes with the old ones and developed a couple of the new ones a bit more and it would have been better off for it. Could have made it a bit more interesting. In fact I do think they wasted Bai Ling a bit, her character could definitely have perked things up.
That said, it was still a great film and if you loved Crank you should definitely go see. If you hated Crank then there's absolutely no point in watching this one. In fact why are you even reading this review? This is not the film for you!
I'm gonna give this an 8. Maybe I'm just being a bit moan-y because it really was great fun but I thought Crank was near perfect for the kind of film it was and I was hoping that the follow up would be too.
8/10
After watching Crank the other week, I was really looking forward to Crank: High Voltage. Crank was one of the maddest films I'd ever seen... it wasn't THE maddest film; I'd have to review the IMDb list to be sure but The Spirit, which I saw earlier this year, is definitely a contender; but it was pretty mad nonethless...
The review for Crank was pretty short so I'm gonna keep this one short too. Again, it's not really worth worrying about spoilers when it comes to Crank films, so I'll tell you a little about it. If you recall, that mad day he had did not end well for our friend Chev Chelios. Luckily for us, he got better and now, a few months later, he's well up for sorting out the problems that have befallen him. There's no point in saying much more about the plot except that it is reasonably well thought out, as was the plot of the first film, but it's completely irrelevant. Basically someone has stolen Chev's heart and replaced it with a battery powered one. So obviously Chev's pissed about that and is on the rampage trying to get it back.
I would say that you should watch Crank before watching Crank: High Voltage. Most of the characters from Crank make a reappearance and there are a few flashbacks so it might be a bit confusing if you haven't seen it. That said, maybe you'd just appreciate it on a different level if you haven't. I don't know. I'm in two minds about it actually, because I didn't like Crank: High Voltage as much as Crank and I don't know if that's because I already knew pretty much what it was about.
Crank was so crazy and so different, Crank: High Voltage is crazy and different too but in the same way. They do ramp it up a bit, a lot actually, and I did appreciate that and I did really enjoy it, but at the end of the day it's the same thing. Also I think keeping the characters didn't really help it. They did bring in a couple of new ones but they seemed to try to mix all the old ones in as well. There were just too many in end. I think they could've taken out some of the scenes with the old ones and developed a couple of the new ones a bit more and it would have been better off for it. Could have made it a bit more interesting. In fact I do think they wasted Bai Ling a bit, her character could definitely have perked things up.
That said, it was still a great film and if you loved Crank you should definitely go see. If you hated Crank then there's absolutely no point in watching this one. In fact why are you even reading this review? This is not the film for you!
I'm gonna give this an 8. Maybe I'm just being a bit moan-y because it really was great fun but I thought Crank was near perfect for the kind of film it was and I was hoping that the follow up would be too.
8/10
Sunday, 19 April 2009
Crank (2006)
--** This blog has moved to www.averagefilmreviews.com, so if you like what you read then please come over and have a look! You can read all the old reviews over there including this one for Crank. You can of course continue reading this article here though. **--
Saw this on DVD the other day in preparation for Crank: High Voltage. Gonna be a short review this one... ;-)
Crank is great film. It's just completely ludicrious. It's so over the top it's hilarious. I know I generally stay away from plot details but let's face it, nobody's gonna Crank for the plot. Jason Statham play Chev Chelios, a hitman who has been poisoned by his enemy. There's probably some technical way to describe how the poison is affecting - actually I seem to remember some brief explanation offered by a doctor along the way - but I don't remember really. All you need to know is that if Chev's adrenaline level drops then he'll die. That's right, it's like Speed but with our hero's heart. Cue 84 ridiculous minutes of Jason Statham tearing across town trying to find and kill his nemesis before he kills him - get it?
As an action film it's brilliant, I can't remember the last time I had as much fun watching a film... that might be just because I have a poor memory for some things though. Ok, that's not entirely true. The last time I remember having as much fun was when I saw Snakes on a Plane... a modern classic to be watched by all for years to come. Or at least I hope it will be. Crank deserves that too. I'm glad they've made a sequel and from what I've gleaned by glancing over Rotten Tomatoes it's at least as good as the first.
There isn't really much else to know about the film... if I wanted to nit pick I would point out that the fight sequences are nothing to write home about. This isn't the Jason Statham from the Transporter films. But that's ok because it's not the point of the film... it's not a beat 'em up, it's more of a "run around like a maniac" film.
Anyway I wanted to keep this short so I'll wrap up with this. I highly recommend this film if you like your movies short, snappy, slightly splattery but all fun.
Can't wait for Crank: High Voltage
9/10
Saw this on DVD the other day in preparation for Crank: High Voltage. Gonna be a short review this one... ;-)
Crank is great film. It's just completely ludicrious. It's so over the top it's hilarious. I know I generally stay away from plot details but let's face it, nobody's gonna Crank for the plot. Jason Statham play Chev Chelios, a hitman who has been poisoned by his enemy. There's probably some technical way to describe how the poison is affecting - actually I seem to remember some brief explanation offered by a doctor along the way - but I don't remember really. All you need to know is that if Chev's adrenaline level drops then he'll die. That's right, it's like Speed but with our hero's heart. Cue 84 ridiculous minutes of Jason Statham tearing across town trying to find and kill his nemesis before he kills him - get it?
As an action film it's brilliant, I can't remember the last time I had as much fun watching a film... that might be just because I have a poor memory for some things though. Ok, that's not entirely true. The last time I remember having as much fun was when I saw Snakes on a Plane... a modern classic to be watched by all for years to come. Or at least I hope it will be. Crank deserves that too. I'm glad they've made a sequel and from what I've gleaned by glancing over Rotten Tomatoes it's at least as good as the first.
There isn't really much else to know about the film... if I wanted to nit pick I would point out that the fight sequences are nothing to write home about. This isn't the Jason Statham from the Transporter films. But that's ok because it's not the point of the film... it's not a beat 'em up, it's more of a "run around like a maniac" film.
Anyway I wanted to keep this short so I'll wrap up with this. I highly recommend this film if you like your movies short, snappy, slightly splattery but all fun.
Can't wait for Crank: High Voltage
9/10
Saturday, 7 March 2009
Watchmen (2009)
I've been disgracefully lax of late. I've actually seen quite a few new films in the weeks since I reviewed My Bloody Valentine 3D. Well, new to me anyway. In case you're interested they were... The Wrestler, Frost/Nixon, Confessions of a Shopaholic, The Notebook, The Devil Wears Prada, Bolt 3D, Anvil! The Story of Anvil and Friday the 13th (the latest one). I haven't written reviews for any of them yet. I do intend to write reviews of some of them at some point... I'm just not sure when. In case you are wondering... The Notebook was the best of them (what can I say, I am a sap!) and Friday the 13th was the worst.
Anyway, this isn't a review of any of those films... the film I saw last night was Watchmen. For those of you who may not have heard, Watchmen is based on the Alan Moore comic book series of the same name. That series has been much lauded by critics... and indeed by everyone I know who's read it. Apparently it is quite the seminal work in comic books.
Sounds great but I haven't read it. I've nothing against comic books, I just haven't read it. When I heard the film was coming out I thought about picking it up, not least because it was staring prettily at me in every book shop I've been to in the last few months. In the end I didn't; I've heard that phrase "It's not as good as the book" said far too many times about films to risk ruining a film that looked like I could really enjoy it.
It would seem that I was right to avoid the book first. Quite a few reviews I have skimmed through mentioned that it's so caught up in looking like the comic that it misses what the comic was actually saying. Phew! Glad I didn't have to experience that disappointment. I really liked this film. Thought it was great. I suppose by not reading the comic I can take the themes and the story at face value. This makes for an interesting film, particularly compared to some of the crap I've seen recently (see list above. they weren't all crap though).
So we've established that I'm in the pro-Watchmen-the-film camp. That's not to say that I thought it was a brilliant film. I thought it looked great, that it was interesting story and in parts it was stunning... but it's a long film and I'd be lying if I said that every one of the 163 minutes was used to its full. It's patchy in parts, especially around the middle. In fact not many films that long avoid patchiness and sagging. It's also not to say that I think it should have been shorter. One of the things I hate is adaptations that insist on updating and abridging their source material, artifically transplanting in some modern day setting to make it "relevent". What a load of bollocks. If a story is relevent you don't to change its setting. Your audience should be able to draw their own parallels. Bah, sick of films that try to spoon feed you. Sorry, I got off the point there. I admire that Watchmen stayed true to its source material, even if it was to its alleged detriment. I'd rather watch a long somewhat flawed adaptation than a half assed cutdown version that bears scant resemblance to the original it's trying to update. Though... I'm not saying all adaptations are bad... I'm just saying that if you're out there saying that you're telling a certain story, you should tell the story.
I got well off track there. Right. Patchy, yes. Watchmen starts out great, the opening montage was really excellent, we're quickly brought up to speed with how this alternate timeline has progressed so far. To be honest this really is the best bit of the film.
As the film goes on it gets a little muddled in places. It's as those the scenes don't entirely flow together. This is probably the problem that those who've read the comics are talking about. I didn't find it that troubling but it did serve to... I suppose hold up the story telling. It's not that I thought it was disjointed or hard to follow. That's not the case. It was just kind of like things were being left unsaid but you couldn't tell what they were. I guess in a comic or a book you tend to fill in the blanks with your own emotions and interpretations, you read at your own pace according to what you're reading. With a film you're in a more receptive state. A film tells you its story on its terms and you process it afterwards. The best films stay with you, thinking about what you've experienced. Or maybe I'm just talking a load of shite but it seems to explain the gaps in this film to me. Or maybe Gilliam was right and it really should have been a mini-series. Perhaps 163 mins wasn't long enough to engage us with the situations and characters in Watchmen and that's why it felt patchy, they didn't have enough time to make us invest in the full story. Actually I'm sure Gilliam was right but I don't think it means that this was a bad film. Just not a brilliant film.
I want to quickly highlight a couple of the more jarring things. That great montage I mentioned does ominously forbode one of the things that Snyder should have stayed away from. While I enjoyed the songs, they were very obvious. A director shouldn't really get the soundtrack to tell us what's going on... that's that screen is for. It was annoying. Also there was a few scenes that could have been dealt with better, less could have been more. I gather they were fairly faithful recreations of scenes in the comic however what probably works as a series of panels in a comic don't necessarily work when you actually film the whole scene with those reference points.
I haven't really dwelt on what I liked in particular about the film because I liked in general really. Oh, I particularly liked the nod to Dr. Strangelove, I always like it when people reference Dr. Strangelove. And how can you not when you're telling this kind of story? Aside from that... the characters, the look, the story, all good... and all from the comic. I guess I'll like the comic when I read it.
Anyway this was a particularly long ramble so I'll finish up by saying it's well worth a look if you haven't read the comic. If you have I can't really tell you if it is or not though I would lean to saying you should. If only so that you get to see some beautiful images on screen. Oh, also I heard the end was completely different from the comic so I went and looked it up. Personally I don't think this new ending is any better or worse than the comic. Just different. I think it worked in the context of the film and I have to say that it is eminently more acceptable to the average cinemagoer. I wouldn't have minded myself but I think that a lot of people who'll never read it would have had a problem with the comic book end.
All's left to say is, that I still would have loved to see Terry Gilliam's mini-series version. Here's hoping.
8/10
NB: Now that I've written my own review I'm reading a few of other reviews out there. I've noticed a lot of critics referring to The Dark Knight and how The Dark Knight is vastly superior. Then I went back and noticed that I never wrote a review of it myself. If I had I would have said that it was ok, not great. Actually it would have been a lot like my review of Quantum of Solace. Though I would have given it a 8/10. I really don't understand the raving about it, I mean it was an entertaining couple of hours and Heath Ledger was outstanding but it doesn't make you think for more than about 5 minutes after it. It was tiring, obsessively realistic and it languished in bleak, gritty darkness, much like Batman himself. Watchmen didn't flow as well The Dark Knight and the acting wasn't of the same caliber but I enjoyed just as much if not more!
Anyway, this isn't a review of any of those films... the film I saw last night was Watchmen. For those of you who may not have heard, Watchmen is based on the Alan Moore comic book series of the same name. That series has been much lauded by critics... and indeed by everyone I know who's read it. Apparently it is quite the seminal work in comic books.
Sounds great but I haven't read it. I've nothing against comic books, I just haven't read it. When I heard the film was coming out I thought about picking it up, not least because it was staring prettily at me in every book shop I've been to in the last few months. In the end I didn't; I've heard that phrase "It's not as good as the book" said far too many times about films to risk ruining a film that looked like I could really enjoy it.
It would seem that I was right to avoid the book first. Quite a few reviews I have skimmed through mentioned that it's so caught up in looking like the comic that it misses what the comic was actually saying. Phew! Glad I didn't have to experience that disappointment. I really liked this film. Thought it was great. I suppose by not reading the comic I can take the themes and the story at face value. This makes for an interesting film, particularly compared to some of the crap I've seen recently (see list above. they weren't all crap though).
So we've established that I'm in the pro-Watchmen-the-film camp. That's not to say that I thought it was a brilliant film. I thought it looked great, that it was interesting story and in parts it was stunning... but it's a long film and I'd be lying if I said that every one of the 163 minutes was used to its full. It's patchy in parts, especially around the middle. In fact not many films that long avoid patchiness and sagging. It's also not to say that I think it should have been shorter. One of the things I hate is adaptations that insist on updating and abridging their source material, artifically transplanting in some modern day setting to make it "relevent". What a load of bollocks. If a story is relevent you don't to change its setting. Your audience should be able to draw their own parallels. Bah, sick of films that try to spoon feed you. Sorry, I got off the point there. I admire that Watchmen stayed true to its source material, even if it was to its alleged detriment. I'd rather watch a long somewhat flawed adaptation than a half assed cutdown version that bears scant resemblance to the original it's trying to update. Though... I'm not saying all adaptations are bad... I'm just saying that if you're out there saying that you're telling a certain story, you should tell the story.
I got well off track there. Right. Patchy, yes. Watchmen starts out great, the opening montage was really excellent, we're quickly brought up to speed with how this alternate timeline has progressed so far. To be honest this really is the best bit of the film.
As the film goes on it gets a little muddled in places. It's as those the scenes don't entirely flow together. This is probably the problem that those who've read the comics are talking about. I didn't find it that troubling but it did serve to... I suppose hold up the story telling. It's not that I thought it was disjointed or hard to follow. That's not the case. It was just kind of like things were being left unsaid but you couldn't tell what they were. I guess in a comic or a book you tend to fill in the blanks with your own emotions and interpretations, you read at your own pace according to what you're reading. With a film you're in a more receptive state. A film tells you its story on its terms and you process it afterwards. The best films stay with you, thinking about what you've experienced. Or maybe I'm just talking a load of shite but it seems to explain the gaps in this film to me. Or maybe Gilliam was right and it really should have been a mini-series. Perhaps 163 mins wasn't long enough to engage us with the situations and characters in Watchmen and that's why it felt patchy, they didn't have enough time to make us invest in the full story. Actually I'm sure Gilliam was right but I don't think it means that this was a bad film. Just not a brilliant film.
I want to quickly highlight a couple of the more jarring things. That great montage I mentioned does ominously forbode one of the things that Snyder should have stayed away from. While I enjoyed the songs, they were very obvious. A director shouldn't really get the soundtrack to tell us what's going on... that's that screen is for. It was annoying. Also there was a few scenes that could have been dealt with better, less could have been more. I gather they were fairly faithful recreations of scenes in the comic however what probably works as a series of panels in a comic don't necessarily work when you actually film the whole scene with those reference points.
I haven't really dwelt on what I liked in particular about the film because I liked in general really. Oh, I particularly liked the nod to Dr. Strangelove, I always like it when people reference Dr. Strangelove. And how can you not when you're telling this kind of story? Aside from that... the characters, the look, the story, all good... and all from the comic. I guess I'll like the comic when I read it.
Anyway this was a particularly long ramble so I'll finish up by saying it's well worth a look if you haven't read the comic. If you have I can't really tell you if it is or not though I would lean to saying you should. If only so that you get to see some beautiful images on screen. Oh, also I heard the end was completely different from the comic so I went and looked it up. Personally I don't think this new ending is any better or worse than the comic. Just different. I think it worked in the context of the film and I have to say that it is eminently more acceptable to the average cinemagoer. I wouldn't have minded myself but I think that a lot of people who'll never read it would have had a problem with the comic book end.
All's left to say is, that I still would have loved to see Terry Gilliam's mini-series version. Here's hoping.
8/10
NB: Now that I've written my own review I'm reading a few of other reviews out there. I've noticed a lot of critics referring to The Dark Knight and how The Dark Knight is vastly superior. Then I went back and noticed that I never wrote a review of it myself. If I had I would have said that it was ok, not great. Actually it would have been a lot like my review of Quantum of Solace. Though I would have given it a 8/10. I really don't understand the raving about it, I mean it was an entertaining couple of hours and Heath Ledger was outstanding but it doesn't make you think for more than about 5 minutes after it. It was tiring, obsessively realistic and it languished in bleak, gritty darkness, much like Batman himself. Watchmen didn't flow as well The Dark Knight and the acting wasn't of the same caliber but I enjoyed just as much if not more!
Friday, 31 October 2008
Quantum of Solace (2008)
In case you were wondering about the... odd title. Quantum of Solace takes it's name from the title of a short story from a collection of James Bond stories called For Your Eyes Only written by Ian Fleming. So now you know.
We'll start at the start. It was great to see the familiar style of opening titles, the posing sillhouttes and trademark gunshaft and the swell of the great new Bond theme tune. Hmm... not a great start. Actually, I like the music in the song, it's quite grandiose - just like you want from a Bond theme tune - however Jack White and Alicia Keys... vocally it just doesn't work. You really start to notice how long the opening titles are, that's just not what you want at the outset...
The film itself starts promisingly though, great opening sequence, more action than you can shake a stick at. From then on it gets a little disappointing though... It's not that I didn't enjoy it. It was an enjoyable film; there were some great action scenes and Daniel Craig looks great in those white pants but let's put it this way... if I wanted to see Bourne 4 I'd have waited to go see Bourne 4.
I also feel I should mention the plot, there isn't really one. Other people I know have complained about this but to be honest that's not what bothered me about the film. Does anyone ever remember the plot of a Bond film? The main thing you remember are the locations, and there are some great locations in this... Though I have to ask anyone who's reading this - Mathis's house looks a lot like a house that's in one of the Transporter films... does anyone know if it's the same house??
Anyway, what I didn't like about it is that Quantum of Solace just doesn't seem like a Bond film. And I know that everyone goes on about how this Bond is "closer to the books" (which I haven't read). And that it's grittier, more realistic, there are less "accoutrements" - like the crazy gadgets and invisible car, and the villians are just on the other side. But you know what? I like the gadgets, I want to see super villans, James Bond should fight his way though a mob and emerge without a hair out of place. It's that stuff that makes a Bond film a Bond film... without that it's just another action film with an amazing budget.
I'm just not sold on the new Daniel Craig Bond at all. I'm not a mad James Bond fan but I've seen a lot of Bond films and I like the old James Bond. Bring back the old James Bond!
6/10
But I will admit, I thought the invisible car was a step too far...
We'll start at the start. It was great to see the familiar style of opening titles, the posing sillhouttes and trademark gunshaft and the swell of the great new Bond theme tune. Hmm... not a great start. Actually, I like the music in the song, it's quite grandiose - just like you want from a Bond theme tune - however Jack White and Alicia Keys... vocally it just doesn't work. You really start to notice how long the opening titles are, that's just not what you want at the outset...
The film itself starts promisingly though, great opening sequence, more action than you can shake a stick at. From then on it gets a little disappointing though... It's not that I didn't enjoy it. It was an enjoyable film; there were some great action scenes and Daniel Craig looks great in those white pants but let's put it this way... if I wanted to see Bourne 4 I'd have waited to go see Bourne 4.
I also feel I should mention the plot, there isn't really one. Other people I know have complained about this but to be honest that's not what bothered me about the film. Does anyone ever remember the plot of a Bond film? The main thing you remember are the locations, and there are some great locations in this... Though I have to ask anyone who's reading this - Mathis's house looks a lot like a house that's in one of the Transporter films... does anyone know if it's the same house??
Anyway, what I didn't like about it is that Quantum of Solace just doesn't seem like a Bond film. And I know that everyone goes on about how this Bond is "closer to the books" (which I haven't read). And that it's grittier, more realistic, there are less "accoutrements" - like the crazy gadgets and invisible car, and the villians are just on the other side. But you know what? I like the gadgets, I want to see super villans, James Bond should fight his way though a mob and emerge without a hair out of place. It's that stuff that makes a Bond film a Bond film... without that it's just another action film with an amazing budget.
I'm just not sold on the new Daniel Craig Bond at all. I'm not a mad James Bond fan but I've seen a lot of Bond films and I like the old James Bond. Bring back the old James Bond!
6/10
But I will admit, I thought the invisible car was a step too far...
Tuesday, 13 May 2008
Iron Man (2008)
My my, I have been lax lately, I really need to write more reviews... it's not like I haven't seen any films lately... it's just that I haven't had a chance to write any reviews...
Anyway so... I saw Iron Man the other day. You may have heard of it, it's directed by the multi-talented Jon Favreau (Jon Favreau is great, you should watch Swingers, everyone should watch Swingers.) and one Mr. Robery Downey Jr. as Tony Stark - inventor, industrialist, womaniser and part-time superhero, Iron Man.
It's important to note part-time there...
Look, don't get me wrong, I liked Iron Man. It was an entertaining film. I enjoyed it, I thought it was good. It's just that it was no Transformers. I loved Transformers, it really set a standard for me... Transformers was everything a film with giant robots should be... and may I point out that there pretty much is a giant robot in Iron Man.
To be entirely fair to Iron Man though (because it just can't compare to Transformers - edit re: comment - and yeah, it's not really the same kind of film) I'll put it on the scale with some other superhero films... It was vastly better than all the Spider-Man films, not to mention what little I saw of Fantastic 4: Rise of the Silver Surfer before I fell asleep. It was also better than Superman Returns and Batman Begins but no way was it as good as the X-Men films. I'd say it was on par with Hellboy. Entertaining but not amazing.
I hate to say it because I'm not all about the huge action scenes and great effects but Iron Man could have done with bigger and better action scene and special effects. There's nothing wrong with an origin story, everyone likes a good origin story, but mostly what we saw was a guy hanging out in a cave building a suit... then hanging out in a basement building a suit... this is not an origin story, it's a guy building a suit. Tell us a bit about his dad, tell us a bit more about the villains... you could even tell us a bit more about Pepper Potts! I mean I couldn't really give a crap about her but maybe if you'd told me something I might, she was as bad as Rachel Dawes. I just thought that there could have been more to Iron Man... watch it again and tell me where the actual story was because I certainly didn't see it... and if I'm not getting a story with real characters and emotion then damnit, I wanna to see big explosions!
Anyway whatever, it just didn't do it for me... I realise there are lots of people out there who did think it was great and I'd love to hear what you liked about it... so please... let me know!
Oh I forgot to mention one thing that was amazing about this film. The car - the Audi R8... what a car... where can I win one...
Anyway so... I saw Iron Man the other day. You may have heard of it, it's directed by the multi-talented Jon Favreau (Jon Favreau is great, you should watch Swingers, everyone should watch Swingers.) and one Mr. Robery Downey Jr. as Tony Stark - inventor, industrialist, womaniser and part-time superhero, Iron Man.
It's important to note part-time there...
Look, don't get me wrong, I liked Iron Man. It was an entertaining film. I enjoyed it, I thought it was good. It's just that it was no Transformers. I loved Transformers, it really set a standard for me... Transformers was everything a film with giant robots should be... and may I point out that there pretty much is a giant robot in Iron Man.
To be entirely fair to Iron Man though (because it just can't compare to Transformers - edit re: comment - and yeah, it's not really the same kind of film) I'll put it on the scale with some other superhero films... It was vastly better than all the Spider-Man films, not to mention what little I saw of Fantastic 4: Rise of the Silver Surfer before I fell asleep. It was also better than Superman Returns and Batman Begins but no way was it as good as the X-Men films. I'd say it was on par with Hellboy. Entertaining but not amazing.
I hate to say it because I'm not all about the huge action scenes and great effects but Iron Man could have done with bigger and better action scene and special effects. There's nothing wrong with an origin story, everyone likes a good origin story, but mostly what we saw was a guy hanging out in a cave building a suit... then hanging out in a basement building a suit... this is not an origin story, it's a guy building a suit. Tell us a bit about his dad, tell us a bit more about the villains... you could even tell us a bit more about Pepper Potts! I mean I couldn't really give a crap about her but maybe if you'd told me something I might, she was as bad as Rachel Dawes. I just thought that there could have been more to Iron Man... watch it again and tell me where the actual story was because I certainly didn't see it... and if I'm not getting a story with real characters and emotion then damnit, I wanna to see big explosions!
Anyway whatever, it just didn't do it for me... I realise there are lots of people out there who did think it was great and I'd love to hear what you liked about it... so please... let me know!
Oh I forgot to mention one thing that was amazing about this film. The car - the Audi R8... what a car... where can I win one...
Friday, 1 February 2008
Cloverfield (2008)
From the team that brought you Felicity, Cloverfield is a heart-warming tale of a man searching for a love that he had tried to deny. Kind of. Mostly it's about a monster attacking Manhattan.
Cloverfield is really the first big "event" film of 2008. The buzz around the trailer when it was first shown before Transformers was immense. Also, given that it's produced by J.J. Abrams, creator of the hit TV series Lost and director of Mission Impossible III, it was bound to have a marketing juggernaut behind it. Though possibly not quite what we're going to see for Sex and The City: The Movie.
But anyway, is it any good? The answer from me is yes. I really enjoyed Cloverfield, at the time. It's one of those popcorn movies, turn off your brain and don't think too much... in fact best if you don't think at all.
There's no particular plot (aside from what I mentioned in the first line of this... no, really!). All it is is a giant monster attacking Manhattan. Actually there is a tiny bit of plot at the beginning which you will have seen in the trailers - the party for Rob - and in my eyes it does go on for a little too long at approximately 15 mins but mostly the film is untroubled by a narrative. What you do get is 85 mins of some hapless New Yorkers running around in absolute mayhem which I can tell you takes little time to unfold. The whole film proceeds at breakneck speed, pretty much assaulting you with noise, flames and falling debris. It's exactly how the trailer makes it look (and no more) and what more can you ask for from a giant monster movie? I will say this, it's not particularly scary or shocking but there are a good few moments where you think "Oh my god!" along with the characters and you can't help but wonder what you would do if you were in the situation.
Given that it's set in Manhattan and involves its destruction I'm sure there are many people who'll draw parallels with September 11th and there'll be more who will talk about whether the film is a comment on the progression of society. If you look at the current political climate, at how big corporations exploit the environment, is the monster a product of the "decline in social responsibility"...? Whatever, I've really no interest in pondering about that. There's a great hulking monster destroying New York and there's nothing more to it than that if you don't want there to be.
Anyway, like I said, I really enjoyed the film however it is not without its flaw - singular, but it's a big one. It is entirely shot through the view of a handycam. While it's all great for the realism and it really does work in context; I get pretty bad motion sickness and the theatre I saw it in was pretty warm so I did have to look away from time to time. Then again, it's only 85 mins long so it was tolerable and there were plenty parts where you can look away without fear of missing anything (unless you particularly like watching the feet of people running). For me, the good outweighed the bad and I highly recommend it if you're looking for 85 mins of destruction but to be honest if it were any longer there's no way I could have taken that shaky camera work.
8/10
Cloverfield is really the first big "event" film of 2008. The buzz around the trailer when it was first shown before Transformers was immense. Also, given that it's produced by J.J. Abrams, creator of the hit TV series Lost and director of Mission Impossible III, it was bound to have a marketing juggernaut behind it. Though possibly not quite what we're going to see for Sex and The City: The Movie.
But anyway, is it any good? The answer from me is yes. I really enjoyed Cloverfield, at the time. It's one of those popcorn movies, turn off your brain and don't think too much... in fact best if you don't think at all.
There's no particular plot (aside from what I mentioned in the first line of this... no, really!). All it is is a giant monster attacking Manhattan. Actually there is a tiny bit of plot at the beginning which you will have seen in the trailers - the party for Rob - and in my eyes it does go on for a little too long at approximately 15 mins but mostly the film is untroubled by a narrative. What you do get is 85 mins of some hapless New Yorkers running around in absolute mayhem which I can tell you takes little time to unfold. The whole film proceeds at breakneck speed, pretty much assaulting you with noise, flames and falling debris. It's exactly how the trailer makes it look (and no more) and what more can you ask for from a giant monster movie? I will say this, it's not particularly scary or shocking but there are a good few moments where you think "Oh my god!" along with the characters and you can't help but wonder what you would do if you were in the situation.
Given that it's set in Manhattan and involves its destruction I'm sure there are many people who'll draw parallels with September 11th and there'll be more who will talk about whether the film is a comment on the progression of society. If you look at the current political climate, at how big corporations exploit the environment, is the monster a product of the "decline in social responsibility"...? Whatever, I've really no interest in pondering about that. There's a great hulking monster destroying New York and there's nothing more to it than that if you don't want there to be.
Anyway, like I said, I really enjoyed the film however it is not without its flaw - singular, but it's a big one. It is entirely shot through the view of a handycam. While it's all great for the realism and it really does work in context; I get pretty bad motion sickness and the theatre I saw it in was pretty warm so I did have to look away from time to time. Then again, it's only 85 mins long so it was tolerable and there were plenty parts where you can look away without fear of missing anything (unless you particularly like watching the feet of people running). For me, the good outweighed the bad and I highly recommend it if you're looking for 85 mins of destruction but to be honest if it were any longer there's no way I could have taken that shaky camera work.
8/10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Just click...
